Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

taildraggernut · #1 07-19-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

So assume for a moment that the Spit was as unstable as some would have us belive..

Than ask yourself.. How did such an unstable plane that was outnumbered win BoB?

At which point your BS meter should be pegged in the red!

ACE the Spitfire was unstable....it just wasn't a problem, it was easy to fly

the question should really be how did rookie pilots with barely any experience on type (lets face it even the experienced Spitfire pilots didn't have much time on type at the time of BoB) manage to fly it if it was so 'dangerous' to handle?

ACE-OF-ACES · #2 07-19-2012, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

ACE the Spitfire was unstable....it just wasn't a problem, it was easy to fly

Agreed

Note I did not say it was not unstable.. My point was if it was as 'unstable' as some would have us belive than those Spits would have been falling out of skys as soon as the pilot moved the stick

taildraggernut · #3 07-19-2012, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Agreed

Note I did not say it was not unstable.. My point was if it was as 'unstable' as some would have us belive than those Spits would have been falling out of skys as soon as the pilot moved the stick

Yep, and if instability was a problem then Mustangs would have been falling out of the sky too, oddly enough the Mustang case was the reverse situation with regards to fuel load, a full fuselage tank made it unstable in all conditions.

CaptainDoggles · #4 07-19-2012, 05:05 PM

This quote says it best, IMO:

Quote:

Originally Posted by robtek

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny

To be fair, there are loads of references by pilot's to having to either wedge their elbows into the side walls or into their own stomachs to steady themselves.
Quite a few mention going 2 handed. They adapted.

As in most cases in WW2, the pilot's coped with the quirks of their machines and got the best out of them ( the good ones at least ).

Exactly, one of the quirks of the Spit was the extreme easy elevator, great for experts, more difficult for beginners; The difference to planes with "normal" handling should be in the game.
Same for the very heavy elevator at very high speeds (>600 km/h) in the 109, i.e.

I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

Right now, the Spit and 109 handle very generically, if you will. We have a situation where there's two aircraft, and they're not really a spit or a 109, it's more like we have two aircraft where one turns better and one climbs better. That's why I want threads like this to continue; because these are two of the most-researched and most-documented aircraft of the war. They should have distinct, unique handling qualities. You should be able to feel the 109's slats deploying, etc.

taildraggernut · #5 07-19-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This quote says it best, IMO:

I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

I think you are spot on, and every time this Crumpp chap is cornered when debating the alleged problems with the Spitfire his usual 'thugs' jump in to cause a disturbance, in a way to prevent their favourite fighter being outclassed in 'any' way.

ACE-OF-ACES · #6 07-19-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

I think you are spot on, and every time this Crumpp chap is cornered when debating the alleged problems with the Spitfire his usual 'thugs' jump in to cause a disturbance, in a way to prevent their favourite fighter being outclassed in 'any' way.

Sad but very Very VERY true

CaptainDoggles · #7 07-19-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

I think you are spot on, and every time this Crumpp chap is cornered when debating the alleged problems with the Spitfire his usual 'thugs' jump in to cause a disturbance, in a way to prevent their favourite fighter being outclassed in 'any' way.

I think you will find there are just as many 'thugs' on the Allied side of things, who get hot under the collar when there's the potential that the Spitfire might not be the aircraft equivalent of Zeus himself.

Al Schlageter · #8 07-19-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I think you will find there are just as many 'thugs' on the Allied side of things, who get hot under the collar when there's the potential that the Spitfire might not be the aircraft equivalent of Zeus himself.

Only when the other thugs try to castrate the Spitfire.

taildraggernut · #9 07-19-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

I think you will find there are just as many 'thugs' on the Allied side of things, who get hot under the collar when there's the potential that the Spitfire might not be the aircraft equivalent of Zeus himself.

i think you will find it's the total closed mindedness of people like Crumpp who inflame things, every time he gets nailed with an awkward question he vanishes and then you and some others jump in and start some kind of riot with all the 'please stay on topic bla blah', why is it when I've asked Crumpp all these questions I end up in a debate with you?

ATAG_Dutch · #10 07-19-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

This quote says it best, IMO:
I guess it comes down to those who want a faithful depiction of reality, or those who want their favourite aircraft to be the best.

So, you want the light elevators of the Spit, and the heavy elevators of the 109.

Where does the 'normal' bit come in? Which of the aircraft in the game behave 'normally'.

And does it make a difference whether i've got a G940 or a 3D Pro?